Skip to main content

No claim if death is caused by fall due to ill health

The difference between a fall due to ill health, and a genuine accidental fall, would determine whether a claim under an accident insurance policy is payable or not.

Case Study: Kishan Lal Jain suffered a fall in his bedroom on March 16, 2009, resulting in a serious head injury. He was admitted to Jaslok Hospital and kept in the ICU. The hospital had registered a medico-legal case and reported it to Gamdevi police station, which recorded his statement. Kishan Lal was discharged in two days.

On March 23, 2009, Kishan Lal had another fall at home, injuring his head once again. He was admitted to Jaslok in an unconscious state, where he expired on April 7, 2009 due to cardio-respiratory failure.

Later, in July 2009, his son Pravinkumar came across an individual personal accident insurance policy obtained by his deceased father from New India Assurance.

Pravinkumar lodged a claim under the policy. The insurance company rejected it, saying the claim had neither been filed in time nor had submitted documents showing cause of death. Then, Pravinkumar filed a complaint before the South Mumbai District Consumer Forum. He sought the insured amount along with a compensation of Rs 5 lakh for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards costs. To bolster his case, he relied on the medical opinion of Dr M S Kamath.

The insurance company contested the case. Advocate Sapna Bhuptany argued that a claim under an accident policy could be entertained only in case of an accidental death, whereas Kishan Lal had died a natural death. The hospital case papers said the first fall was due to giddiness caused by a sudden onset of vertigo. The death summary of the second hospitalization records a repeat attack of vertigo. Medical history also reveals that Kishan Lal was suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure. He also had convulsions for which he was advised neurological evaluation and treatment through anti-epileptic drugs. The cause of death is certified as cardio-respiratory failure. There is no mention that death occurred due to any accident or head injuries.

In its judgment of March 11, 2015 delivered by S M Ratnakar for the bench, along with S G Chabukswar, the forum noted that the medical certificate did not reveal an accidental death. The forum differentiated between an accidental fall resulting in an injury, and a fall due to ill health. Accordingly, the forum dismissed the complaint.

Conclusion: If a person suffers a fall, resulting in death, due to violent, visible, and external means, it would be an accidental death, and a claim under an accident insurance policy will be payable. But if the fall is due to ill health, it would be considered a natural death.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Consumers-cannot-claim-accident-insurance-if-death-is-caused-by-fall-due-to-ill-health/articleshow/46901715.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...